It has been two months since our last update. So much hashappened. One hung jury and another loss. Don't lose hope. Webring a special article to bring hope.

Merck has spent over $200 million so far on trials. They haveset aside another $685 million for future trials. The onlyway to make sure you can compete with them is to get a lawyertake your case on contingency.

If you do not have a lawyer, it is time to get one and we now are hooked up with the best. Take a moment or two toget your case evaluated for free. Just visit:Your Settlement

We all want this to turn out right for you. Fill this out tonight!

Regards,

CarolVioxx Update Editor

-----------------------------------------------------------

NEWS ALERT: If you have not received a portion of the recent 200 million dollar Vioxx lawsuit... read this.

If you have taken Vioxx and have not signed-up with a lawyer you need to do so NOW. Time is limited and you do not want to waive your legal right to a settlement.

Do You Have A Case? Fill out this 60 second, no obligation, free evaluation form and find out. Even if you have filled out a form in the past, please do so again to get evaluated. Only 10% of all cases have been evaluated as of October 1st. Just visit: Your Settlement

-----------------------------------------------------------

Journal Top Issue In Vioxx Retrial

Top medical journal's criticism of a study cited in Vioxxlawsuits is expected to play a part in the retrial of theirst federal Vioxx lawsuit - but it's not clear if it willbe a legal hand grenade or a nuclear warhead.

The disclosure that some negative data was omitted from thestudy could make manufacturer Merck & Co. look as if it'shiding something, legal experts say. That is what attorneysfor Evelyn Irvin Plunkett, whose husband died after takingthe drug for a month, say they can prove in the trialstarting Monday.

The first federal trial - held in Houston in the wake ofHurricane Katrina - ended with a deadlock. Two jurors saidthe split was 8-1 in favor of Merck's contention that takingVioxx had nothing to do with the death of Richard"Dickie" Irvin.

The day those deliberations began, the New England Journalof Medicine published criticism - one step short ofretracting the study - accusing its authors of withholdingand deleting relevant data.

The information alone is "damaging although not shattering,"but its implications could be devastating, NorthwesternUniversity law professor Ronald Allen said.

Vioxx was a $2.5 billion-a-year seller when Merck pulledit from the market in September 2004 because a study foundthat taking it for 18 months doubled the risk of heart attacks.

An earlier study known as VIGOR, published by the journal in2000, is being cited in allegations that Merck held backinformation about the risk of heart attacks.

The journal's critique noted that its editors learned thatthe authors had deleted information about three additionalheart attacks not reported in the original study, butreported to the Food and Drug Administration. That wouldhave changed a section about side effects, showing thatVioxx patients had five times as many attacks as those onthe pain reliever naproxen, rather than four times as manyand that patients not considered high-risk were havingheart attacks, it said.

"Taken together, these inaccuracies and deletions call intoquestion the integrity of the data," the journal said.

The editors found a blank table labeled "CV events" â€“ heartattacks and other cardiovascular side effects - on a firstdraft of the VIGOR study found on a computer disketteafter the recall. It was deleted from later versions on thesame disk.

Dr. Gregory Curfman, the journal's executive editor,confirmed through a spokeswoman that software indicatedthat data was deleted from the table two days before themanuscript was submitted, and identified the deletingeditor as "Merck."

But, he wrote, the Journal's editors didn't realize thesignificance of the deletion until Nov. 21, when Curfmanwas questioned by Plunkett's attorneys. They produced amemo showing that at least two authors knew about the heartattacks at least two weeks before submitting the first of tworevisions and 4 1/2 months before publication.

Until then, the editors wrote, they had believed the authorsdidn't know about those heart attacks in time for publication.Merck says the heart attacks occurred after a reportingdeadline.

The article didn't mention any such deadline, and thejournal would have expected updates anyway, Curfman wrotethe lead author in an e-mail released by the court.

Merck's attorneys, led by Phil Beck, plan to show that VIGORwas "done the right way," meeting all scientific standards,Beck said before the judge imposed a gag order on bothsides.

The main focus of Merck's arguments, as in the first trial,is that Vioxx had nothing to do with Irvin's death. Healready had clogged arteries and a blood clot, they havesaid in court and in interviews.

Allen said the editorial's precise impact will depend onjust how significant the data is considered - and that, inturn, will help decide what use judges allow.

It might simply be folded into the evidence, he said. Butit might also be used as a possible indication that Merckwas hiding something.

"If juries get a whiff of that, it's going to bedevastating," he said.

Howard Erichson, a Seton Hall Law School professor, calledthe editorial a stunning development. But, though he calledit "terribly damaging" in a December interview, he now saysit won't dramatically alter the case.

"It was about a few data points, not a fundamental rethinkingof causation," Erichson said. "It's one piece of evidencethat's going to undermine one of the Merck witnesses.

"It's there, it's interesting, but it doesn't fundamentallychange the course of the litigation."

The case being retried starting Monday was the third amongmore than 9,600 state and federal lawsuits against Merck.Two state jury trials ended with a split decision: a $234million verdict against Merck in Texas, and one clearing itof blame in New Jersey. Another trial is under way in Texas,and 10 more are scheduled in state and federal courts overthe next six months.

Merck has set aside $970 million for legal costs, and saidit spent $285 million of that last year. The remaining $685million should last through 2007, it said Tuesday.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Please forward this to ANYONE you know who has taken Vioxx. Thank you from the Vioxx Update Staff